Cluster bombs vs SMArt bombs

[Slytovhand]

Hey.

My GetUp group has sent me an email requesting that I send a message to our PM to ban the SMArt 155 bombs that we are acquiring (pls google for the bomb, and here's a link to an argument against... here
), as there is a conference in Dublin at the moment about banning all cluster bombs.

I get this email, and immediately think "Damn right!!".. then decide to go looking at this thing.

Basically, it deploys, detaches into 2 'submunitions' and uses 3 different sensors to find a target, and seeks it out and blows it up. Or... if it doesn't find it, apparently it's got a self-destruct in it (I haven't found info on that though ).

I, personally, would prefer to see all our munitions like that... as better targetting equals less civilians killed or injured.

Thus... the ban on this would actually make things a little worse, not better. This is the campaign



So.. the question is... would you sign it?

Slyt


Edit: I should point out, that I am totally against normal indiscriminate cluster bombs... and mines.... and...well, actually, against all weapons for that matter... can't wait til humanity gets its shit together.....

[lordlundar]

I've seen some new designed artillery (Excalibur if I remember right) which is the type of a typical artillery shell (one shell having one charge) but it has a GPS chip and fins, which allows it to be fired at a higher trajectory and on initial tests hit it's target within 3 feet at maximum range. This is my definition of a smart weapon, one that when fired, you can be assured it will hit it's target and little else. As well with it's higher trajectory, it can be fired in an urban environment more safely.

Any weapon that splits is a cluster weapon, not a smart weapon, and cluster weapons, irregardless of the guidance, is designed for indiscriminate destruction. I see no purpose for this weapon that Excalibur or a single bomb equivalent cannot do better in large numbers.

The argument for this weapon is that it can it multiple targets at once, but there is missile and artillery technology that renders this obsolete at production and are safer for both sides in a conflict. Precision weapons with pinpoint guidance can do more in a fight than cluster weapons. And with new technology, cluster weapons in all forms are being rendered obsolete, so I see no reason to keep this around. It's nothing more than a cluster bomb with a name that makes people feel better.

[Vagabond]

Even with so-called "smart" bombs, mistakes can be made. Bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, LINK

I am against indiscriminate killing, however, I don't believe in limiting the tools available to you. For example, there is such a thing as a 'paint can opener', however most of use use a screwdriver and damage either the screwdriver or the paint lid in most cases. I would rather have this tool available to use under the appropriate conditions, than be seeking an alternate when I could have used the appropriate tool for the job.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's fair to say that, even on modern battlefields, there's plenty of target areas with 100% or at least 99.9999999% hostile personel you need dead. Cluster bombs fit the bill to well to get rid of. The problem stems from using them where something else is needed. It's getting the the point where the JDAM system and similar are delivering pinpoint accuracy, so it's not like we're hurting for something to use.

[Vagabond]

I also wonder how long before those 'hi-tech' weapons we have can get hijacked.
If they are able to get a live predator feed - LINK - then I wonder how long before they can rig up something to either fry a crucial circuit, or throw a bomb off-target?

[Hobbs]

There's little to fear of a fired ordinance being 'hijacked.' The systems that control the ordinance are usually self-contained, and only operate from the signal of the aircraft they're fired from. As for frying a circuit etc., that's the point of counter-measures; ie. flares, ECM (electronic counter-measures) and those have been around for years.

I do find the option of being able to fire one bomb and take out multiple targets. It's a force multiplier. I think the people behind the ban don't understand modern warfare at all.

[Tanasi]

My experience tells me not to deny our forces any weapons they can use to protect themselves and us. Cluster bombs and mines are area deniablity weapons that are cheap and in most cases easy to deploy. Why risk a soldier's life to keep an enemy out of an area when mines will do the job? I know not all mine fields are marked and civilians get blown up all the time but that doesn't elminate the weapons effectivness and I say that having been blown up twice by mines.

[Hobbs]

This discussion is about precision munitions. Mines are another matter entirely. There's actually an international treaty against them, yet Congress has yet to ratify it.

[Skelly]

This discussion is about precision munitions. Mines are another matter entirely. There's actually an international treaty against them, yet Congress has yet to ratify it.

Personally, I see mines as a good thing on many occasions. They do help in keeping the neighbours in check. The border between Finland and Russia is probably still heavily mined, and for a good reason. Invading your neighbour suddenly turns a bit harder when there's a relentless death buried for your troops and tanks all along the border...

[Hobbs]

The problem is that mines are indiscriminate weapons. Children and non-combatants being killed by these devices during the Bosnian War and other conflicts in the 1990's was the reason for the ban. For me, it conflicts with my idea of a Just War in that the use of mines can be seen as a contrary to the definitions of a Just War; "...the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."

[elsporko]

There is no such thing as a just war. In war you should do as much damage to the civilians as you do to the military to make sure nobody wants to go to war with you. Its too bad America has forgotten this.

[Hobbs]

I find it fortunate you're not influencing US military strategy. You sound oddly familiar...you're not by chance a 2nd Amendment-waving Canadian, are you? O_o

LOAC comes from both customary international law and treaties. Customary international law, based on practice that nations have come to accept as legally required, establishes the traditional rules that govern the conduct of military operations in armed conflict. Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land,” and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law. This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, all persons subject to US law must observe the United States’ LOAC obligations. In particular, military personnel must consider LOAC to plan and execute operations and must obey LOAC in combat. Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

[Boozy]

There is no such thing as a just war. In war you should do as much damage to the civilians as you do to the military to make sure nobody wants to go to war with you. Its too bad America has forgotten this.

Ignoring how callous an attitude that is, what you propose is a useless tactic at best, a dangerous one at worst.

Ther population of Afghanistan had no interest in going to war with the US. They were being held hostage by their illegitimate government, the Taliban.

The people of Iraq had no interest in going to war with the US, either. Hell, Al Qaeda didn't even have a foothold there until the US invasion.

At this point, killing Afghan and Iraqi civilians merely foments hatred where none existed before. The Iraqi father who saw his son's arm blown off by an American bomb would not be out of line to swear vengeance, even though he had harboured no real resentment towards the US before that point.

[lordlundar]

The problem is that mines are indiscriminate weapons.

And, if you look up the history of mines, you'll find more than a fair share of areal deployed mines designed with bright colours and similar traits to make people think they're toys.

[AdminAssistant]

I know it's just a TV show, but I highly recommend you watch Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations episode about Laos. Where he talks to people who have lost limbs from unexploded munitions dropped by Americans during the Vietnam War. Innocent civilians, who weren't even alive at the time in some cases, are losing their lives or limbs because of our garbage. It's sickening.